Appeal No. 2003-0802 Page 6
Application No. 09/180,108
secondary considerations. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Nor does the fact that Evers is directed to the problem of stabilizing the concentrated
cleaning solutions somehow make the composition unobvious. Evers is clearly interested in
obtaining a cleaner that will not streak or film but will, instead, provide a good shine. In fact,
Evers specifically tests exemplified formulations for filming and streaking (Evers, col. 6, l. 12 to
col. 7, l. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform these tests
and thereby discover the optimum or workable concentrations of the surfactants which will
prevent streaking and filming and, thus, provide good shine.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 14, 15, 18-20, 22,
and 23 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
With respect to the portion of the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), we reverse. To
anticipate, Evers would need to clearly and unequivocally disclose a composition meeting all the
limitations of the claim or direct those skilled in the art to such a composition without any need
for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
teachings of the cited reference. Here, one must make various selections of surfactant
combinations and concentrations. Such picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the
making of a Section 103, obviousness rejection, where the applicant must be afforded an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007